But we're talking about players that only have eyes for us, even rumours that Sane would've stayed for a year and then we would've agreed to trigger his £31m release clause next summer.
How can we still buckle in that situation?
Shalke are the ones who would be set to miss about on a big payday and be left with an unhappy player who'll leave for less the following summer.
Hopefully the figures are inflated since it's a Shalke brief but these are continued poor precedents we're setting that are continually coming back to haunt us, like the other blue said, Everton will be rubbing their hands now.
Just giving continual encouragement to selling clubs to string us along on the knowledge that we always cave in, no matter how much we posture.
Because a player's word isn't binding. What would have stopped Bayern deciding they fancied him at £31m and then Sane changing his mind? Pep wanted him now so we had to pay the price to get him now. Schalke would have had him for another season and he might have been the difference between CL and not, which could make up the financial difference.
I agree that we've set precedents though - we only ever seem to have one clear target for a position rather than having the flexibility to end a pursuit in favour of another target. If media rumours had also suggested that we'd been after Reus for a similar price, that might have encouraged Schalke to cash in rather than let Dortmund have the pay day. I'd imagine there's a lot of talk behind the scenes though so media talk has less weight, and you run the risk of the player you eventually sign feeling like a second choice.